While some claim that third-party development is key to a thriving Nintendo console, the reality of what the public actually buy can often be very different. The Wii had an amazing install base, but generally speaking the games with the most impressive attach rate were quality first party releases such as Mario Kart Wii, Super Mario Galaxy, etc.

Stardock CEO, Brad Wardell isn't too worried about the prospects for the Nintendo Switch if third party support dwindles away, however, so long as Nintendo itself keeps pumping out content:

Nintendo doesn't arguably need third party. You think about the Mario games, Zelda, I mean, there's plenty there. I mean, if it was a $1000 game system, maybe I'd care. But as it stands now, there is plenty to play with on the Switch, that's just fine.

When it comes to Wardell's own studio - which typically focuses on PC games - he certainly is not convinced that it's worth putting out a game on the Nintendo Switch anytime soon:

No, we probably will not support the Switch. It's too different than any of the others, and there isn't a lot of - I haven't seen a lot of third party success stories on the more recent Nintendo hardware. Nintendo, is a great market for Nintendo, but I haven't seen a lot of huge hits made by non-Nintendo studios.

Darren is Nintendo Life’s Batman: fearless in the face of danger, he loves gadgets and talking in a really, really deep voice. As Operations Director he stays mostly behind the scenes in a room he insists on calling “The Batcave”.

Nintendo has to tread a very fine line between exciting the crowd with their own hardware and software, and making adequate room for third parties, as to not dissuade those in the audience who desire more than what Nintendo themselves offer.

I think third parties'd be daft not to get at least some of their stuff on Switch, as all I'm seeing lately when things are announced is, "ooh, that'd be great on Switch," and, "A Switch version of this'd be cool." Of course, people merely commenting along these lines doesn't NESecelery translate in to guaranteed sales, but the interest is definitely there.

So we're not going to have a Stardock Game on Switch? Is there really anybody who cares? Because that seems to be his message, he's just finding an excuse. I'm not even sure any of their games are a "success story" even on different hardware. Never heard of those guys before, but maybe i'm the only one...

Yes and no, as always. Things aren't as black or white. There haven't been a lot of times when Nintendo has found success despite the lack of third-party content. The Wii and 3DS are the closest I can think of, and those examples come with huge "buts".

On the other hand, the N64, GameCube and Wii U surely would have benefited from stronger third-party support, especially when the grass is so much greener on the other side.

@olrodlegacy And not a lot of commercial success. That reinforces his point, if anything.

Depends what type of support he's talking about. If he means COD and the like he's probably right, that audience is elsewhere. But no third-party support at all? Not even Nintendo think that.

Nintendo games will make or break it. For the first time since 1990 all of Nintendo's games will be on one machine and it will do OK no matter what. But Third-party support will definitely help. Having Minecraft, Monster Hunter, sports games, indie support will be a huge plus.

@electrolite77 But, it had the Resident Evil series at its peak, Viewtiful Joe, Eternal Darkness, Beyond Good and Evil, all the same sports games the other consoles got and so on. I'd kill for all that now...

Who is this guy? And it would be nice to get more 3rd party games just for Diversity sake. But if anyone can survive with no 3rd party involvement it's Nintendo. They have had no support since N64 and here we are in 2017. But please let this be the system 3rd parties say hey! I want my game on Nintendo.

I think we can all agree the Switch would benefit from 3rd party support.. but guys this is an opportunity for us! We have to be willing to buy 3rd party on Switch even if we only get inferior ports at first. That's how they are gonna "test the water" but once they see the Switch has a market for third party, we'll start to see the games pour in!! I'm excited guys!!

It maybe doesn't need all the amazing AAA third party games out there to ultimately succeed commercially, just like the Wii. But unless you work for or own shares in Nintendo, or are simply thinking about how your company can profit off of the Switch, being successful commercially should not ultimately be what you are thinking of in terms of this thing being a proper success. You should be thinking about it being a system that delivers all the games and experiences you'd personally want to see and expect to see on any truly great and fully satisfying console. And, unless you really are just a blind fanboy, that should include all the genuinely great AAA third party titles out there. So, just like the Wii, unless the Switch gets enough great third party games, ideally a bunch of them being those AAA titles, it will never really be one of the true greats imo. There's a good reason the SNES is still my favorite Nintendo home console of all time.

Its really all up in the air. If Nintendo can pump out plenty of heavy hitters that offer enough unique experiences and convince enough people that they need to play them, then the console can succeed on Nintendo games alone. However, this tends to be a rarity than the norm.

As for how well 3rd parties sell in Nintendo hardware, he does have some points. It is no secret that many of the big multiplatform titles see their greatest success on other platforms. To succeed on Nintendo platforms they have to offer a superior or unique experience.

@olrodlegacy Those Resident Evil games sold poorly on the system, despite being exclusives at the time. The system received a lot of third party support in general because it was seen as the same power as the competition, just using mini DVD format

The Wii U was a lovely little Nintendo system that had very little outside support, and the gaming world generally ignored it due to several mistakes- No early tent pole Zelda game, bad name, little advertising.

Four years later and the Switch has course corrected these mistakes- but in reality it's following the same course of a fantastic 1st party lineup, bolstered by some nice Japanese and indie titles with some American publishers wondering if they should put a toe in the water. And people are buying the system where they didn't buy the Wii U.

I wonder if it's also partly due to people getting tired of the stagnant 3rd party repetition on the PS4 and XB1?

I sort of agree. My personal experience is that I buy Nintendo console for Nintendo games. I don't buy Nintendo consoles to play some version of the same franchise game I can get on multiple platforms already. That said, Nintendo has a proud history of innovative and unique second and third party games that definitely enhance the experience.

I don't think they need it in the same way as Sony or Xbox, certainly not with big name franchises or AAA games.

I think, what they need, is selective third party support. Titles that work well with the form factor and hardware on show. Things that people would think, that would be cool to game on the go or things like that. I intend to support Skyrim when it releases on Switch because the ability to play really good games on the go is the point of the system.

If we get some third party titles, alongside the already promised excellent third party Indie titles and all the good first party products then I think the Switch will have an excellent library.

The first 'mature' title in the list is at #54, which is Call of Duty 3. Above that in the list are all Nintendo published, or Just Dance, Lego Star Wars, Mario & Sonic Olympics, that kind of stuff.

However, interestingly, Wii sales for Call of Duty 3, according to vgchartz, were only second behind Xbox360 - 2.7m compared to 2.4m (though I suspect digital sales on 360 and PS3 may not be wholly accounted for here).

This is obvs just a very tiny piece of evidence, but considering how the Wii was low res and 'casual' oriented, the Call of Duty 3 figures suggest a worthwhile audience has been there on Nintendo hardware in the not-too-distant past.

Devs have just got to put the games out there and not over-charge for them.

It'd be great. But his point about no third-party successes stands. Third-party games, even really good ones, often struggle on Nintendo systems. I'd love to see that change but we have to be realistic.

So by this logic, PS4 would crash and burn horribly if it had no third party support? Seriously - who buys a console primarily for third party games? It's merely the icing on the cake - not the other way around.

This guy is a fool. 3rd party support is absolutely needed for Nintendo and wanted by NS owners. WonderBoy, Blaster Master Zero, and I Am Setsuna are great examples. We need more developers willing to take advantage of a system with decent strength and the ability to go portable, it's a market any 3rd party can take advantage of...if some of them are smart they'll have NS software announcements at E3.

Simply put, Stardock has made nothing but PC shovelware...anything they say about console gaming just doesnt matter.

@ThatNyteDaez You say that, but look at last year's top selling games in the US. Other that Pokémon Sun and Moon, the top 20 sellers were all third party games. Not a single other console exclusive. Not even Uncharted 4 made the list.

Far be it from me to beat my own drum, but when it comes down to Nintendo platforms it seems that first/second party, collaborations with third parties and indies will be the way forward.

Would I play Call of Duty on Switch? No, it's not my bag at all, but that's besides the point; if Switch continues its trend of selling like dem hot cakes, it would be well within Activision's interests to partner with them for a bespoke version that appeals to that crowd. Same could be said for Madden, FIFA, and various other multi-player focused games.

Nintendo knows what it's doing, and third parties aren't stupid; you may not see every title on the platform, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they (third parties) will be there if the success continues.

Personally, I'm far more concerned about what Japanese publishers/studios will bring to the table. If the current contributions are any indication, then the future in this area is bright.

I think this guy is wrong. . . If you make a good 3rd arty game - especially early on in the SWITCH's life - it will get a lot of exposure. . .
I'm sure the Snake Pass devs have made good money on SWITCH along with the SHOVEL KNIGHT guys!.

The thing about 3rd parties is they need to provide quality software - not shovel ware. Nobody wants shovel ware on a system.

The sensible route would be to develop high quality arcade games - especially with a multiplayer element - games with high re-playability and lower development costs. . . .Developing huge game like Zelda is impractical for small dev companies - but quality small games are an easy sell on SWITCH..

@olrodlegacy GameCube had lots of third party software. That doesn't mean they were successful though. There will be plenty of publishers wishing they had games out on switch right now though. Switch users want software now

Yes and no. What any system needs is variety. While Nintendos first party is usually stellar (with a lemon here and there), they don't cover all the bases. Bayonetta was a nice change on the Wii U from Nintendos usual fare, for example. I don't think Switch needs the same carbon copy supposed 'AAA' titles the other systems get, but it does need a variety. I'm not sure Nintendos up to the task of providing a full range by themselves (though what they'll be able to do with their portable and console teams merged onto one system remains to be seen)

@electrolite77
You know that there's a difference between being realistic and pessimistic, right? I mean, have third-party companies even remotely done the best that they could on Nintendo consoles? I can't help but feel that the most we got were afterthoughts at best or bad at worst.

@Roam85
Really? Then what do you call the updates from Konami for Super Bomberman R? Considering that they even give updates to the game, plus an announcement of playable characters based off Gradius, Castlevania, and Silent Hill, I think they're pretty satisfied for how the game performed. Plus, isn't the fact that there's a new Bomberman game released on the Switch noteworthy enough?

Anyway, I think that it would be good to at least have some decent third-party support that's actually competent or relatively on par instead of ones that are bad, make excuses for their failures or watering down their projects. I can only guess that there aren't too many success stories because few actually put effort into making the game good or even letting people know it's even on Nintendo systems. Plus, what does this say about the 3DS, which, from what I've seen, has decent third party support? Nintendo is doing just fine for the most part, but third-parties are welcomed if there's some effort done.

And what/who in the world is Stardock, anyway? Have they even done anything for console gaming (i.e. anything besides PC)? If not, then I don't think they're one to talk about third parties on console gaming.

@ShockFire10 Third party games don't sell well on Nintendo consoles. History has provided very few examples to the contrary and those titles (harvest moon, portable monster hunter, professor Layton etc) never left. Some developers tried really hard on the wiiu and got very little in return. Look at monster hunter ultimate or resident evil revelations as examples.

"too different" is the most painful thing this guy could say (whoever he is). Wii had a TON of 3rd party content, but because Wii was "too different" it was all scaled down "waggle editions". Nobody asked for that. It's not just "third party content" that people want, they want the SAME third party content as the other consoles so they can buy one system and get all the games PLUS Mario etc. that they get nowhere else.

Many buyers who did not grow up on Nintendo, if forced to choose, will leave Mario behind and get the other systems because they have "all the rest of the games" and have them in higher quality.

Nintendo need 2 thing to happen if they don't get AAA 3rd party support. 1. Indies, indies and more indies.2. Nintendo 1st party needs to be 100% on Switch and not divided between console and handheld games. Good bye 3ds...good bye.

@faint
You're using ports as an example? Try exclusives. Or better yet, give me a game that's actually properly advertised for Nintendo systems or even remotely establishing some form of parity. Also, are you suggesting that those games (some games from Harvest Moon, Monster Hunter and Professor Layton) weren't released because of poor sales and not just some other reason such as, say, the timing or publisher issues? Also, other systems don't have games that made it stateside, so what does it mean for them?

As always there needs to be some definition of what exactly is meant by third party software. AAA games look unlikely, partly because of the perception of Switch as too underpowered, but also because there are already 80 million+ gamers invested in the competition. It does seem as though the industry is betting its chips on PS4/Xbone as the home for those.

Conversely, the Switch looks like it's going to be a good place for Indies and smaller-budget (non-AAA) games. It worked for the 3DS, Wii U not so much. Switch is off to a good start. There is third party, there is a growing userbase. Will be interesting to see how it develops.

Depends on the type of game. Nintendo fans aren't really interested in the same high end, AAA generic crap that sells on Microsoft and Sony consoles but they will buy games like Monster Hunter, Sonic, and indie titles. The problem is that third parties don't really know how to appeal to Nintendo fans and just expect them to like the same thing that Microsoft and Sony fans like. You do not need that brand of third party to be successful.

@ShockFire10 resident evil revelations came out at the same time on the PS3 Xbox and wiiu. It did way better on the other systems. Monster Hunter Ultimate only came out on the Wii U and flopped. You want to talk about exclusives? Wonderful 101 sold like crap. Tokyo Mirage Sessions sold like crap. Bayonetta 1 + 2 pack didn't even break a million. Zombi u (launch game) had a bundle and still barely sold a million.

@faint Resident Evil has fared pretty well on Nintendo consoles in the past.I'd say Revelations poor sales was more down to the low install base and it being a port of a game many Nintendo fans had already played.I've not checked but I'd guess it sold pretty well on 3DS.I bet if RE7 had come out on Wii U at the same time as others it would have sold pretty well.Away from the RE franchise though,there's not much else really.The numbers don't lie.

I'm not with this .... Nintendo needs thirdh part support if want to be a success in terms of long period. Who says not clearly close all eyes on what the history and the market of videogames has been till now.

seriously his company must be a mega success that he finds time for a pointless comment. Does switch need 3rd party support. Yes. AAA games no its not attempting that. It needs games & good games but its aiming for a totaly different market. Unlike the farcical Wii U launch which confused everyone. At least this time Nintendo seem to be marketing it well to show what it is. Plus comapring it to anything else just look at the size of it when its docked. Its fffffffffffff tiny compare to a monster box that is XB1. I can throw everything in a switch storage bag to take away with me. So I can play multi player with joycons on a tv. & also have the gamepad to play zelda.

@Bolt_Strike agreed, and tbh I think a lot of people wanted to play those AAA shooter type games where they looked the best, so there was no reason to have them on the Wii U. However, the Switch is a bit different since I think people would appreciate the portability? Hmmm we shall see.

The WiiU took off at launch due to a great launch line-up and great third party support.

The moment 3rd party support disappeared, the WiiU console sales took a huge dump and never recovered!

Even though Nintendo has a great stock of 1st Party IP's, it just doesn't have the capacity and resources to release enough good games quickly enough and consistently to keep a console's sales momentum!

Even Microsoft and Sony can't pull this off and are highly dependent on 3rd party support to keep sales momentum with their consoles! /shrug

Seriously! Just look at the Switch right now.... there is literally hardly anything coming out right now.We got Super Mario Kart 8 Deluxe this week and then we will hit another drought for a month at least.

@kobashi100 Because they were either bad ports or released months after they were already released on other consoles and PC, so people had already played them.

And honestly, your examples like Call of Duty never really do well on Nintendo consoles, as the CoD playerbase is mostly on PC and XB/PS consoles.

The fact is, Nintendo needs 3rd party support! Or you end up looking at one major game every 4-6 months on a console, like what happened eventually on the WiiU, where we had to wait months between releases.As I could care less about shovelware on the e-Shop.

@MrGawain definitely my reason. I bought dozens of X360 games, but I've only got five games on Xbox One. Most 3rd party franchises have stagnated horribly for me at least. When I learned about the Switch I decided to just commit full force to Nintendo, a gaming corporation that rarely lets me down. I've owned every home Nintendo system and grew up playing Zelda and Mario. I hope some third party comes to the Switch, if only to boost Switch sales and allow the console to be successful.

@Roam85Sorry, but it's kind of hard to understand sarcasm in text format. Nevermind what I said, then. Still, I think that the whole "no success stories from third-parties" thing is a whole lot of hogwash.

Nintendo doesn't NEED 3rd party games, but it doesn't 't hurt to have them on a Nintendo system.

The reason 3rd party games don't sell well on Nintendo is because, lets be honest, we as Nintendo fans tend to be... snobs. That's right we're snobs

"ooh 3rd party game is coming I'll get it day one!" A few weeks later "What! On the other console it runs at 60 fps but they only managed to get it to run at 59 fps on Nintendo. Pre-order canceled!"

Although I'll say this too the 3rd party games we do get often are missing content found on the other consoles like DLC or in some cases entire game modes are removed. In those cases it is better to get the game elsewhere.

Yeah, is right. Bing of Isaac is not a great third-party sucess on the Switch. Neither Wonder Boy. Or Lego City Undercover...and Showel Knight also. Yes, i dont see ANY third party sucess game by now ....

@faint RE 4 Wii Edition sold more than the Gamecube original though.2.22 million compared to the latter's 1.69 million.RE Zero and RE 1 sold 1.29m and 1.42m respectively. Umbrella Chronicles meanwhile sold 1.3m and it's sequel 1.05m,when considering the kind of games they are I'd say that's not bad at all.Looking at the list of best selling RE games,they've had as much success on Nintendo consoles as they have on Microsofts.RE 5 and 6 were big sellers but they never appeared on Nintendo consoles so can't really predict how they'd have done but if we are to compare.RE4 Wii Editon sold less than 5 but more than 6 did on 360.As for Revelations,it did fare worst on Wii U with only 0.2m but Xbox 360 is not much better at 0.26,while its sequel had atrocious sales of 0.08m.The Xbone version never fared much better with 0.11m.

I'm not trying to debate with you about 3rd party success on Nintendo consoles,as I said,the numbers don't lie but I do think there is definitely an audience there for RE games at the least.

@chriscare hahaha you clearly don't know what you are talking about if you don't think beyond good and evil was triple a. Some of those titles did eventually get ported to Sony btw where they did sell 2 million

See, Nintendo isn't the "Nintendo" of the gaming industry anymore. They haven't been for a while. The window was cracked with the original Wii, but Nintendo fumbled that away and have been in the boat they've been in ever since.

Nintendo ruled the 80s and 90s. PayStation and Xbox rule the 2000s (and now the 2010s). We can debate and discuss the 'whys' until we're blue in the face. But the root fact still remains: Nintendo is not "it" in the modern day industry.

@Jeronan I'm talking about every single Nintendo home console since the snes. Not just the wiiu. Anyone who frequents this site know I'm a Nintendo defender but these are facts. Most Nintendo fans don't buy third party.

@Ebefren Lego City was an exclusive launch title during a drought that barely cracked a million by the time it dropped to 20 bucks. The others are low cost inde games. I'm sure most games would sell more if they launched at 15 bucks.

It needs games. If 3rd parties want to ignore Nintendo, then I end up ignoring them too. My ps/PCS don't get used nearly at all with my switch, ds, 3ds and Wii/u pretty much dominating my last 10 years of gaming. Only dark souls, l4d and Starcraft have gotten me away from my Nintendo addition.

Nintendo consoles have never been Nintendo game machines unless we're talking Game & Watch or derivative editions like NES Mini. There's a limit to how many games first party studios can release over the course of a console's life cycle, there's a limit to how many genres they can represent and there's an extra profit from ports on another platform, especially the one offering a distinct advantage over the others. I don't know what counts as a lot in the man's eyes, but I'm not sure the sales of Golden Eye, Resident Evil 4, Xenoblade, Bayonetta 2, The World Ends With You, Monster Hunter, Ace Attorney and other classics are pocket change either.

I'm surprised the talk even touched Stardock's own support for Switch, though. Looking through the list of their games on Wikipedia (although I don't know how thorough it is) didn't yield me a SINGLE game with any console port to date.

@olrodlegacy How is he forgetful? He specifically states 'I haven't seen a lot of third party success stories on the more recent Nintendo hardware' MORE RECENT.

How can you consider a 17 year old system to be 'more recent'? Especially with 3 additional systems under their belts since? With the Wii and especially the Wii U (the 'more recent' systems), he is dead-on accurate.

Even with the Gamecube, listing good/great 3rd party games on the system that you remember fondly and that got good reviews is not the same as those games being hits or even moderate sales success stories.

I may not agree with him that the system doesn't need 3rd party support, but he's not wrong about 3rd party sales on Nintendo console systems being flat, with even the vast majority of the better selling games falling FAR short of their sales on other systems.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE agree. Sounds like laziness with a tint of cowardly custard. Make a great product, put it out, support it with innovative and interesting marketing (thisnwill negate spending fortunes) and let word of mouth and good reviews take care of the rest.

"It's too different than any of the others, and there isn't a lot of - I haven't seen a lot of third party success stories on the more recent Nintendo hardware"

There is a reason for that. Most of those so-called games are crap, actual good games have been few and far in between. His statement also means that people, especially him, are unable to think outside the box of the standard cookie cutter designs. In short, this guy is an idiot. The WiiU had potential, but the 3rd party devs were unable, or unwilling, to take advantage of what it had to offer. Almost like they were too afraid to try something new. Now with the Switch, it offers a more standard way of playing, just with the portable aspect added. So in that respect, it is not too different.

In short, the Switch does need 3rd party games, but not the crap shovel ware that plagued the Wii and WiiU. Not to mention game developers need to be more open minded.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE I think third parties help fill in the gaps, but I don't think he's way off base in saying those third parties aren't going to be what makes Nintendo succeed. The Wii didn't succeed because of the major third party releases, since it missed most of the big ones, but it did get third party spinoffs and smaller games that helped flesh out the library. I think that will be the case with Switch too. Yes, it needs third party support, but it doesn't need the same type of support or games that the other major consoles are getting.

As for your final comment, "Then he turns around and says he has no intention of supporting the switch", I'm not really sure how that's relevant. He's saying his company isn't going to support switch (Why would they, considering they are primarily PC) but that Nintendo can still succeed.

@olrodlegacy Considering that was over 15 years ago, I don't think he's too forgetful at all. After the Wii U, I can't really blame any developers for staying away from Nintendo hardware. From a business perspective, why take a risk, when there's much safer options out there that will almost guarantee a higher return on investment.

@chriscare have you played beyond good and evil? It most certainly is triple a. I remember playing on the game cube when it was new. A 3D action platformer adventure like that? Heck it looked better than just about anything on the Xbox PS4. They really pushed the cube near its limit. Also where are you getting your sales figures from? I hope it's not vhchartz.

I don't know why any Nintendo fan doesn't buy some of the quality 3rd party games. I recall Ubisoft putting out some decnt games onbthe Switch but some of them did not sell. I loved the Assassins Creed game on Wii U, Rayman, and the Zombi U. But, apparently, Rayman was the only one to sell decently. If some quality 3rd party games that I like will come to be Switch, then yes, I'll go in on it. Payback may be one as I missed that one. Could get it on PC but since I missed it, I may get it for Switch. Bring some great games and I (along with others I presume) will play. Simple enough.

Not surprising Stardock isn't supporting Switch, but the comments are a little funny considering Stardocks games are generally not "hits" by any stretch and are, like most Nintendo games, pretty niche affairs with a loyal niche audience and are veeeeery PC-centric games that really need a keyboard and mouse. Ironically WiiU is the only console on which their games would have had a chance of being truly playable.

From that angle, he's analyzing Nintendo and third parties from the same position most of us are, from the sidelines as an uninformed spectator, he's not really part of the action either from the hit-maker third party setup, or Nintendo success. But he's right that any third party working on a Nintendo platform can't go into it with the perspective of producing "hits" like on XBox where there's no real competition and generic third party games ARE the library, but simply to turn a profit. Western publisher seem to be in a mindset (Ubi point blank said so a few years back) that everything MUST be a hit and they product ONLY hits. Japanese publishers, including Squeenix, seem to be returning to the mindset of "it just needs to be profitable."

@markie7235 Mostly true. And it should be telling that I think to most of the audience here, including myself, there's a lot more games from your second sentence list than the first sentence list that actually interests us! Nintendo fans love third party....it just so happens that we love third party games from a list of companies that produces a lot of unique content on Nintendo platforms that doesn't go to other platforms.

I don't see EA doing much but token support. EA is, largely, the XBox 2nd party publisher. They support PS4, but they are steeped in the XBox culture, most of their management having been former XBox management. Even their PS4 support is shaky compared to their full throated Xbox support these days. They aren't what they were even 10 years ago, and I'm assuming some amount of money changed hands after they virtually bankrupted themselves buying every studio that moved just to shut it down. OTOH I think Activision will have more support than you think. They have a decent Nintendo relationship, and remember even Wii and WiiU had COD until WiiU totally flopped. Portable COD would be new for them, and I could see them doing that. It's a franchise with the broad appeal and popularity (and budget) to try the risk at least once. Heck, Microsoft is one of the Switch's earliest supporters (via Mojang), Activision will make a go of it. Ubi will be Ubi. They have a good Nintendo relationship, they'll offer support, but in the wrong ways at the wrong times and utterly waste what could have been good. We'll see AAA Ubi games at least early on. But it won't be long lived support (again.)

@JudgeMethos Well either third party games were enhanced ports that fans more likely already played from the 360/ps3 era, or so late you more likely moved to another systems. I mean, cool I can play Arkham City after just finishing it. Neat Mass Effect 3, but the trilogy is coming out a month after it..........

Im not trying to be doomish or rude here. I'm just coming from the perspective of a Nintendo gamer who has been buying 3rd party games on Nintendo systems regularly for 18 years with my own hard earned money. I buy them over and over again and watch them drop into the discount bin within months. During the height of the game cube I actually worked for a major game store in the us and nobody picked them up then ether.

@faint@JudgeMethos A lot of it is expectations publishers have that are divorced from reality though. ZombiU sold well, but not "as well as expected", which was a foolish expectation number. But they were counting on WiiU being double-Wii, and selling out 10M in an hour kind of success. So they staked their financials on that assumption. It was silly, and that setback (born of their own pie in the sky imagination) caused them to stumble, second guess, and delay when it came to Rayman which helped cement WiiU's fate as that was a key exclusive during a critical part of the window. They returned to full support with AC and W_D but other than AC3, it was already after the system was declining.

ME was the catastrophic EA blunder that's been talked about ad-nauseum (spend money doing a good port, then price it to fail.)

Fatal Frame and Tokyo Mirage were never expected to be anything but "flops", the lack of voice translation in the west shows Nintendo's expectations of it's sales. Both are niche games. Both are 1st party published though, so that doesn't really count in with the whole third party thing though.

I think most of these companies know they don't sell on Nintendo, but gave WiiU a try based on the hope they'd be penetrating the Wii market and seeing huge numbers by reaching that massive audience. When that didn't pan out and it was clear in weeks that wasn't going to happen, they washed their hands of the experiment, cut their losses and moved on. They weren't interested in Nintendo's market, they were interested in tapping Wii's market. They found out on launch day that wasn't going to happen.

Um, yeah the Switch needs third party support. Clearly this guy wasn't paying attention to the Wii U (one of the many reasons why it sold poorly). If we were to strip away every third party title from the Switch, you'd be left with 1 2 Switch, Zelda and Snipperclips, with Mario Kart 8 dropping in 4 days. Next game release wouldn't be until late Spring with Arms. No Shovel Knight, no Snake Pass, no USF2, no SMT, etc.

That being said, I don't understand why Nintendo fans take the term "X console needs Y" too literal. Of course a console's success isn't going to be based on one thing; there would be many factors as to why it succeeded (or flopped). A "minor" problem by itself can be passable, but if there is a number of "minor" problems, than it can cause a much bigger problem overall.

@faint W101 and Tokyo Mirage are 1st party published, so that's its own thing. Platinum/Atlus got their promised money, they'd crank out as many sequels as paid to. They're fine. The losses come back to Nintendo itself there. MHU actually did OK. Sure it really broke away on 3DS, but MH is one of the big success stories of brand building in the West, that happens to be tied to Nintendo's audience. Whether MHU itself did great numbers versus the 3DS or not doesn't matter, in the West, MH=Nintendo, and Capcom isn't oblivious to that for their #1 franchise.

And Lego City barely hitting 1M on the WiiU isn't bad as a non-first party launch title. Even look at Killzone: Shadow fall an MAJOR 1st party PS4 launch title, it's up to 2.6M on a platform that sold way, way, more than the WiiU. Launch titles just sell like launch titles.

But yeah the problem goes back to N64 (something to many people forget.) That was a turning point for Nintendo, but they had little choice at that time, and all that came after it is partly a result of the N64 era. Their creation of Playstation, their ignoring what PS was doing, but also, they HAD to abandon the trend for optical discs if they didn't want to pay their own competitor, and that mandated going their own way. What happened then paved the way for where they'd have to go. Not just that though, they openly abused 3rd parties in the NES/SNES days, and most of them could not run away fast enough as soon as Sony showed up as a legit competitor. None of those companies WANTED to have any business to do with Nintendo and as soon as they could help solidify a competitor to shut out Nintendo, they were only too eager to do so, and given how Nintendo behaved back then, most of us would have supported them in doing so!

Flash forward, Nintendo's largely reformed how it treats partners, and no longer struts around like the Yakuza barking demands and enacting punishments, and they've largely mended fences, but the stigma is still there, and more importantly in the intervening years they've moved to a different type of business. First out of necessity, now out of intent.

All that aside, there's still plain old business to take into account. Nintendo's still the biggest publisher on the planet. Why would EA/Acti want to do business with the only publisher bigger than themselves when they're guaranteed to be "little fish in a big pond" there when they cold be a "big fish in a big pond" in any other platform. There's really just no reasonable business sense for the big western publishers to do much business on Nintendo, not unless it suddenly becomes the #1 place their games sell. Meanwhile there's a bunch of mid-budget and Japanese publishers that have almost no presence in the West outside Nintendo hardware, and while they may not sell COD numbers, they make some money and keep the lights on.

I think the fan base tends to come in two flavors now. People that really just like XBox/Playstation/PC but want to play Mario and will never be happy until either Mario comes to Playstation, or until most Playstation games come to Nintendo, and the second group that remembers what NES/SNES was like and expects Nintendo will return to that profile as though the last 20 years never happened.

Though even in those days, Nintendo actively limited how many games any studio could put out. I always laugh when people complain about a given company only bringing a few games. Back on NES it was MANDATED they only did just that even if they wanted more.

What an idiot!Lets go back to the WiiU...Any and every not broken or gimped 3rd party game that was multi-platform and on the WiiU sold the best on the WiiU

Also, we know he is lying because EVERY other studio has said that the Switch is very, very similar to the HD Twins when having to port a game. So him saying that it is vastly different is just a bold-faced lie.

Just say that you don't want to work with Nintendo and you'd earn more respect than you are by spouting off lies!

Yes they have. Several of the third-party games on Wii U were day and date with other consoles but Wii U owners found reasons not to buy them. Look at the sales of really good exclusives like Wonderful 101 (published by Nintendo but a third-party game), Zack and Wiki, Red Steel, Viewtiful Joe, Rocket. It's not all of them doing their best by any means, but those that do don't necessarily get rewarded.

@Gold_Ranger As far as multi-platform releases go (which is the current norm in the market for third party content) no, not really. It was certainly better than during the N64 era, but it wasn't anything to write home about compared to all the content the PS2 was getting. Might be more comparable to the OG Xbox's level of support, but there's a reason why not a lot of people talk about that console.

And @electrolite77 has already pointed out that those games didn't sell that well either. To top it off, a good number of the titles it did get were exclusive (or were supposed to be, anyway), which only makes my point more obvious: broadly speaking, people weren't buying GameCubes for its third-party games. The same cannot be said about its 6th gen competitors.

It's a moot point, however. He clearly stated on the more recent Nintendo hardware. He's basically saying that the promise of playing all future Nintendo software for 350 bucks is a good deal even disregarding third-party content. That much I can agree with, I wouldn't be an early adopter otherwise.

"There's plenty of good third party support on 3ds and ps vita that I think will gravitate to the Switch."

This I totally agree with. Converting the userbase of those two machines-and Wii U-into Switch owners is Nintendo's primary target. If the big Western publishers think enough people want to play scaled-back/portable versions of PS4 games and come on board, great. But the only Western games Nintendo need to be chasing is sport games.

So to all the guys arguing with me about 3rd party sales... how many of you guys are picking up street fighter, Tetris, or disgeae five? I have them preordered. I'm sure you guys will find some reason not to buy them.

And how often did the big western third partys even really try?
I would have bought Deus Ex for Wii U as i'd prefer that version, but I already bought it for PC ages ago, same with Need for Speed. I would have bought FIFA on Wii U but I played the demo and that version was garbage. I was fairly interested in trying Mass Effect 3 on Wii U, since I had not played it already, that version was far more expensive at that time though...

I don't expect a CoD to sell as much on Nintendo consoles as on the others either. It is a bit of a different market.
But to say that third party games are not successful at all on Nintendo consoles is just wrong.

Anyone who thinks Nintendo doesn't need 3rd party companies to succeed is just lying to themselves. Yes most of us buy Nintendo systems primarily for Nintendo first party games but sometiems it's not enough and we want games and franchises from other companies. Where would Nintendo be today is NES and SNES never had the stellar first party support it got? Probably bankrupt.

@faint I might be pointing out the obvious here, but just because people (myself included) are interested in seeing more third-party support doesn't mean we're willing to buy anything and everything that comes out on the Switch.

There's plenty of reasons why people would skip those games. Puyo Puyo and Disgaea are rather niche, and I'd bet most people who care about fighting games own some version of Street Fighter II. And unless we're talking about 16-bit versions, I bet they didn't pay nearly as much as Capcom is asking for this time around.

Now, if we were talking about Street Fighter V, a well-received Sonic game and... uh... anything with more mainsteam appeal than Disgaea of all things (say, Persona 5), you might have a point.

Well if enough 3ds, wii u, and vita owners all convert, that should start providing a large enough base that many of the large western developers will not be able to ignore the Switch.

Now what that translates into in terms of which games are ported/developed, anyone's guess is as good as mine. I personally don't plan on buying skyrim for the Switch (have 100% the game already on ps3), but I might change my mind as we find out more details. However, I think skyrim will be a litmus test, not necessarily in terms of people buying it, but more so in testing graphic capabilities and ports. If it turns out well, you could see games like red dead redemption 2, and other high end games ported to the Switch.

It's ultimately going to come down to user base and ability to render high end graphics with minimal loss of frame rate. If developers can do it with minimal cost, and there's a large user base, they will be forced to reevaluate

@Kirgo Through out this thread people are talking big triple a games. Have you been to the forums here? That's just about all the users talk about in the port threads. (That and hd remasters of 20 year old Nintendo games). Lots of triple a games released on the n64, game cube, and wii that didn't sell. This isn't isolated to the wiiu.

@MarcelRguez my point is Nintendo fans always have a reason. Let's see how long it takes for a third party game to sell a million on the switch that isn't funded by Nintendo. We are going to be waiting along time unless it gets a portable monster hunter.

@faint Yes, they (again, we) always have a reason. Whether the fault lies on the publishers/devs or the fanbase itself has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. As I said in my first post ITT, things aren't as black or white when it comes to entire userbases.

@BiasedSonyFan So, all you care about is Nintendo being profitable and its shareholders getting their cut, and not whether you actually get the games you care about? Because, if you're arguing that my assertion in somehow wrong, that's basically what you're saying--and that's just completely idiotic. I'm not claiming everyone cares about AAA third party games, but you'd have to be a total blind fanboy or a moron to argue that this isn't something most, as in the majority, of sane gamers would actually want on their Nintendo consoles if it were at all possible. You're the one that lives in some kind of delusional bubble that only makes sense to you, where people who own Nintendo's consoles basically don't care about anything but Nintendo's first party games, but you just don't see it. Shut up, you plonker.

No console in this day and age is ever going to be a one stop shop for all gaming experience. You either buy multiple consoles or pick the one that offers what you most want to play.

Saying Nintendo needs COD, or anything else to succeed is to ignore what Nintendo has. Look at all the open world games there are today on ps4 and xbox1 that nintendo doesn't have. But guess what, those other consoles don't have Breath of the Wild, and having played many of the others, I'd pick having BotW any day over Horizon Zero Dawn.

I know commercially the wii u was a flop, but at the same time I truly enjoyed most of the games I bought for the wii u. I use to own 70 some wii u games, and even after getting rid of many, I still have 40 I just can't part with. To put into perspective, I only have kept 35 ps4 games, and 15 of those are games from limited run games.

While I have no idea who Starsdock is or what software they create, the CEOs statements are not false.

The success of the Switch will be based of Nintendo's own exclusive software. It will get some good Japanese 3rd party support like the 3DS/PSV, along with a handful of western 3rd party games if the Switch continues to sell well, but the bulk of its success will be based off Nintendo's own first party output.

@faint I am on this site for quite a while now too, but no, under this news not everyone talked about AAA and even if they were, it is not what the news is about.

I also never said it's just a Wii U problem. The Wii didn't have any typical AAA games at all. Which is obvious as the console just couldn't run them. I can also write some things about the older consoles, but why? This is about recent consoles and on them there are several successful third party games. Not so many AAA games, but they barely existed, like I already mentioned.

@Kirgo this is an ongoing issue between 3rd parties and Nintendo that's been going on for years. You can't just pretend it only matters now to suit your opinion. The wii did get some great third party games but nobody bought them. Same with every Nintendo home console from the n64 on.

@faint You are twisting around what you yourself are talking about.The Wii did get some great third party games that didn't sell, that is true.You were secifically talking about third party AAA games just now though and the Wii didn't really have any of that.The fact that third party games generally don't sell on Nintendo consoles is what I say is wrong and I have proven this through examples.

@faint Being frank, that's such a ridiculously reductive statement that I can't picture you typing it with a straight face. How about going deeper in the cause behind that? For example, there's nowhere near as many exclusives nowadays as in the 90s. If every major retail title aims to be multiplatform now (meaning PS4/XBO/PC), it's only natural that consumers pick the version they consider to be the best/more convenient. That might make what you say true in some instances (late ports of AAA titles in particular), but to presume that this will always be the case and give up on third-party support makes no sense from a developer's perspective. When was the last time the Wii U received a fully-featured version of a multiplatform title? Black Ops II, maybe? I'm asking honestly, I'm pressuming there had to be some other one after the Director's Cut of Human Revolution. Was CoD Ghosts full-featured?

I'd say there's plenty of evidence to defend that, when devs do take the taste of the userbase into account, their games can sell well enough. You yourself brought up Monster Hunter, Prof. Layton and Harvest Moon as examples of that. Bravely Default was mentioned ITT as well, and Atlus RPGs too. There's a trend here, and an easy to see one: niche Japanese titles tend to do well enough on Nintendo systems.

All of these are exclusive titles (disregarding mobile), but they don't have to be. I don't recall if they were the best selling versions or not, but I do recall Shovel Knight and Rayman Legends selling very well on Wii U. I also think of all those people saying they'd rather play Yooka-Laylee on a Nintendo console, and Mighty No.9 before that.

I'd say the real problem right now is that the big Western publishers aren't willing to make mid-sized games that can target that "niche" effectively, they'd rather use those resources to pump out another open-world faster. Since those don't sell on Nintendo systems, they presume the userbase isn't willing to buy any third-party content at all, and move on. Things like Child of Light exist, but they're too few and far between.

As @faint pointed out, the vast majority of 3rd party games do not sell well on Nintendo home consoles dating back to the N64. That's 20 years and 4 platforms worth of evidence.

To add on:

"What about the GameCube? It had 3rd party games!"

Correct, it did. This is because of 2 things:

a) It's a standard definition console. Game development was significantly cheaper then. It has since skyrocketed because of HD.b) Mid-tier development was still a thing. That is something that has since died out for the most part.

"If the Switch takes off, they can't ignore the install base like the Wii!"

Again, it's an SD console. It was cheaper to create SD versions of games like CoD and there was less risk in creating games like De Blob.

While an install base will help, they'll be far less likely to come running to Switch because it's a far greater financial risk.

This also applies to 3DS devs as well. I think they'll be slow to transition over to Switch, and the total number of overall games during the Switch's lifespan from these devs will probably be half of what it was on 3DS due to HD development.

@Kirgo most of those games are on Nintendo portables. I have been over and over again talking about home consoles. I know the switch is a hybrid but people are asking for console experiences like what the PS4 and Xbox have. Those games sell poorly on Nintendo consoles. Bomber man r hasn't even sold 300,000 units yet. I would not call that a success. Just Dance is clearly not the type of game I or the person who is the subject of this interview are talking about.

@faint Bomberman R isn't exactly a huge game that deserves the 60 bucks price tag. That's why it's selling poorly!
The controls are also buggy, making the game a complete pain to play without a proper D pad, so unless people fork out 80 bucks for the Pro controller.... good luck playing the game with the joy-cons.

Just Dance is and always has been niche. In recent years it has been selling poorly on all platforms.
But apparently they keep selling just enough units and development being ridiculous cheap, that they keep pushing out a new release.

FWIW (not that I was one of the folks arguing about 3rd party) but Disgaea 5 is my big retail title for the next few months. Much more excited for it than Arms honestly. But a VEEERY niche Japanese TRPG is kind of what the Nintendo audience is all about a lot more than "Dead Island"

Puyo tomorrow, too. I wasn't planning on it, puzzle games aren't my thing, but the demo hooked me. Digital though. Needs to be on the console for quick play sessions, I wouldn't remove my "big" game like Disgaea just to play it. Again, very well focused on Nintendo gamers. If EA announced (through a tired face) Andromeda, I'd preorder right now. But if they announced Battlefield or Dead Space....nah, not interested. Not games that interest me. WiiU actually had pretty much EVERY 3rd party franchise I was interested in at the time (ME, AC, W_D, DX)....shame those franchises can't continue on Switch, it actually WOULD be one stop shopping except for Sony exclusives.

The funny thing about this article is that I still think Stardock games would probably do better with Nintendo's audience than XBox's or even Playstation's. Their games kind of fit the playing tastes of Nintendo players more. I think I'm the only one posting that can say while I never thought of Solar Empire on Switch, hearing that it won't be coming actually makes me want it. That game would be a beast as a handheld game

"lking about home consoles. I know the switch is a hybrid but people are asking for console experiences like what the PS4 and Xbox have. Those games sell poorly on Nintendo consoles."

That's kind of the issue in a nutshell though. There are THREE platforms to play the same games on. Aside from a handful of excellent Sony exclusives (and the myriad of PC-only titles) there's absolutely nothing that differentiates those platforms. Building out a 4th platform to play the very same games on even if Nintendo could jump all the hoops to convince third parties to support it fully, which would likely involve discontinuing all Mario and Zelda titles forever, and paying said companies....who would benefit? Nintendo would gain nothing, 3rd parties would gain nothing other than having to support a FORTH platform to reach the same customers, and consumers would loose variety via a platfrom that's very different from the other options. Nobody wins but people on internet forums complaining they want to just buy one machine to play every game because they're too cheap to spend $250 on a PS4 but somehow don't mind buying piles of $60 games.

Switch is for playing the next iteration of games that have been on DS, 3DS, Vita, and WiiU. PS4 and X1 and PC are for playing the next iteration of games that have been on PS3/4, X360/1, and PC. People can pick which they like and buy that platform. Or decide they like them all and buy two platforms. And there's really no reason at all to buy 3 unless you don't like having an empty HDMI plug.

Some people are getting bit confused. Games like COD don't need to sell us much as PS4 and Xbox one to be a success. Publishers and developers just don't want to see their games bomb. Wii U owners didnt buy COD so Activision said no more. NBA 2K sold so poorly 2K games said no more on Wii U. Remember when Sega released Yakuza on Wii U. Again it bombed so hard Sega said no more.

@NEStalgia in Japan the vita has a ton of developers. The switch is already eating its base up. I imagine due to lack of region lock and ease of porting we will see a lot of those developers in Japan use the Japanese eshop to release games with an English patch for download as well as physical release for import. They don't have to pay a license for each region anymore.

In many cases, the reason why the Wii/WiiU versions of multi-platform games failed is because the ports were poor/shoddy watered down versions. Often missing features the other system versions had. It was almost like they were trying to make sure the Nintendo versions of their games did poorly so that they could walk away. When given the option, more often than not people will go after the more complete games that have all the features. Not after the ones that are missing features, or are just poor ports in general.

Nintendo can be blamed for many things, but in this case, the blame rests on the developers.

@faint It was kind of a joke, but that would be cool if it works out that way!

OTOH most of what I've seen from the Japanese Vita developers is most of the games are very anime-fan-otaku kind of games, so niche might be an understatement for most of that stuff. Nice if it comes, but while Nintendo fans love quirky Japanese games, I think the anime-otaku type games are actually a Sony base more than a Nintendo base.

@SilentS The "missing features" things I think were an "internet outrage" issue more than a real business issue. It didn't help those games among the core fanbase, but the broad market had no idea such problem existed. What DID hurt, was the price disparity, and in the case of ME3, the fact that the full HD remastered trilogy was cheaper than the one game, on any other platform, and that it was the 3rd entry of a story driven trilogy on a platform that had customers unfamiliar with the series (and late so that most of the crossover players already played it.) "Missing features, missing DLC" etc doesn't really hit the world outside the internet bubble. Being more expensive, including less games, and arriving after most people interested already bought it on a different platform definitely does.

But there's plenty of truth that Nintendo fans aren't fans of most of the games those companies are pushing and therefore sales will always be low. Those games are primarily about the visuals more than the gameplay mechanics. What percentage of the total population would you guess is interested in those games, owns a Nintendo, but is NOT willing to own another platform? And of the ones who are interested and have a Nintendo and ARE willing to own another platform, what percentage of those would rather buy the game for the Nintendo platform (excluding the Switch era since now that adds portability which IS something that might be desirable.)

Even without running numbers, we can guess that the total number is sufficiently low to not warrant the required costs of making the product. MOST of us on this form are part of that 'problem' of owning another platform that excels in those games, and owning a Nintendo for excelling in the games it does. Switch though, does change that dynamic for me. I'd buy everything on Switch first if possible due to the hybrid.

@faint We'll I'd certainly be all for English translations of any of that if it's actually a more commercial tier than a lot of the indie content that's out there these days. Region-free could be huge.

@olrodlegacyYeah, people forget, the Gamecube had pretty decent third party support. Back then, it was almost a given that most of the big multiplatform games would be on Gamecube, even when it was failing. Would kill for that kind of support again.

There may not be a lot of people who are heartbroken about this, but I would buy stardock games on my Switch instead of my PC if they were available.

If you somehow just try to be something between knees and back and try to act all clever then you really should go and check Stardock catalogue, which is full of great games and they own rights to many great IP's that they are rebooting.

@faint That's the thing, Nintendo needs to give some kind of benefit for third parties to develop on their consoles. Nintendo has gone out of their way to make the Switch easy to develop for and made it appealing to third parties but I guess it's not enough. Most third parties seem to praise the Switch but will "hold out" on developing for it.

You can add to that things like "I would, but I'm waiting for top-drawer Nintendo games like Tri Force Heroes or Mario Tennis Ultra Smash", "It's not got DLC (that I wouldn't buy anyway)", "It doesn't use the Gamepad (that other versions don't have", "I'm in a huff over Rayman Legends", "I'm in a huff over Mass Effect" etc. etc.

Whatever the reasons are, a lot of third-party games struggle on Nintendo consoles. Ports, exclusives, well-targeted or not. Sony and MS are simply better at getting 'AAA' support so anybody who wants to play the big Western games is better off with one of their machines (or a PC).

I believe there's a balance between 1st party exclusives and 3rd party games. I doubt many Nintendo fans would buy a AAA game such as Mass Effect, Call of Duty, or dare I say Skyrim, however I do see the possibility of 3rd party exclusives much like Monster Hunter, Professor Layton, Etc being much more profitable on an Nintendo console.

@Jeronan@faint Monster Hunter 3 on the Wii U sold decently, however it was released at a time where monster hunter isn't as popular in the west as it is now.

@Dazza The problem is that our minds understand words as 'groups of letters', so even though it's not spelled correctly, it has the right letters and the brain usually whizzes by it. I honestly had a double-take on it, myself.

@MarcelRguez Open world games don't sell on Nintendo systems? What the heck is Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild then? It isn't an open world. It just sold 1.3 million units of software in the U.S. this past month.

@Ricube I didn't even know until I read this article that Stardock made games. I'd say we're not missing much...

As for 3rd party games, honestly if Nintendo cranks out first party games, does it really matter? We're talking: Mario/Zelda/Donkey Kong/Kirby/Pokemon/Metroid/Star Fox/F-Zero/Pikmin/Splatoon/Super Smash Bros/Fire Emblem (I'm sure I missed a few).

Yah we won't get the latest COD or Batman game (maybe?) but I think we'll do fine.

You know, please please forgive the "tl;dr" (especially as my very first comment on Nintendo Life), but I actually sorta kinda agree with the guy. Hear me out:

I mean, let's think about it. The Wii was a huge success. The WiiU? Not so much. The difference between them was NOT 3rd party support, though. Neither one of them had very good 3rd party support on the one hand, and yet neither one of them were absolute 3rd party deserts either.

So what was the REAL difference between the two systems then? Two major things:

a) the volume and quality of 1st and 2nd party Nintendo games....

.......but EVEN MORE IMPORTANT in my opinion.....

b) that the unique use case that Nintendo offered in the Wii resonated hugely with gamers, was well supported by developers, and was widely adopted and smartly implemented all around....whereas the WiiU tablet, though a very interesting idea that did have a bunch of untapped potential and a few clever implementations here and there never really resonated with the masses, and developers never really knew what to do with it, or cared to figure it out, plus it couldn't be decoupled from the system. So even though it did have amazing potential, and even though it had features that even the Switch doesn't have, it ultimately became this "Swiss Army Albatross" that dragged the WiiU into the bog.

Now, not having 3rd party games certainly didn't help matters, granted. But at most, it was the tertiary cause of the system's lack of true success (because it wasn't exactly a total failure either). Ho-Hum 1st party support paired with the un-unpairable dead weight were both larger factors.

Therefore, while we certainly DO WANT third party games on the Switch, and while the system will certainly be even better and even more successful with them than with without them.....not to mention even more enjoyable - and even more damning to the PS4 and XB1 who already seem kinda silly now when held against the flexibility of the Switch on the one hand, and the raw power of PC gaming on the other...

...but at the end of the day, do I think the Switch really NEEDS 3rd party games? So long as we have a compelling, resonant unique use case that is consumer and developer embraced, and as long as we have a steady stream of quality 1st and 2nd party Nintendo IPs, then I am forced to conclude that the answer to the question of whether or not we truly NEED them is a resounding.......No. And we already have the first of those two necessary components clinched.

Therefore, so long as Nintendo keeps the hits coming, then the system will still be a soaring success and a total delight even if we never see a single major 3rd party blockbuster in its entire life. And please understand that my saying this is in no way any sort of indictment of the Switch, but rather, a declaration of complete faith in it that it's such an amazing system, and so close to invincivibility assuming the 1st party is strong that it can stay afloat even without 3rd parties...

@Gold_Ranger coming from the guy who called me a for no reason? I just treated you the same way you treated me. Now leave me alone and go ogle some five year olds or whatever a person who calls them self gold ranger like to do when nobody's watching.

The Switch is doing a solid job of leveling the playing field because of its portability. I have listened to plenty of podcasts with people who have two systems saying they wished they could take that Xbox or PlayStation game with them. That is a huge difference over past Nintendo hardware.

The rub though comes back to the hardware, and I think there is plenty of blame to go around.

Nintendo makes amazing first party software. It can be intimidating to third parties, and Nintendo hasn't always been the best partner.

Likewise, third parties very rarely have brought their 'A' game. They have relied on past generation ports or mediocre games. Why would anyone support that?

Does the Switch need third parties? For breakout success, the answer would be no. It can enjoy success and profit with just third parties though.

@The-Chosen-one when I read this I thought the same. Nintendo has been going a longtime with no 3rd party support. If anyone can do it. It's Nintendo. I just hope that's not the case. No 3rd party support=Frustrating for a lot of us.

Sounds like sour grapes to me (clearly Nintendo doesn't want shoddy PC ports). His games are at best regarded below average and couldn't get a rise out of a Viagra induced teen-ager flicking through an Asian Babes nudie mag.. I'm actually glad Nintendo has declined to "open the floodgates" otherwise we'd be flooded with shovel ware galore (as we were with Wii)

@JudgeMethos one thing people (gamers, devs, publishers) forget is who the target audience is on Nintendo platforms. Audiences need to be built on any said platform. Nintendo needs unique titles on Switch as well as established hit games. Capcom could easily revive Mega man on Switch. Ubisoft could make Beyond Good & evil 2 , Tecmo Ninja Gaiden, & Konami Castlevania etc. Then have all these characters appear in known Nintendo hit games such as Smash or Mario Kart. Then release Amiibo for these characters. This would establish new found love for these franchises and now would be on people's radar. Fire Emblem became a good franchise in the west mainly due to it appearing in Smash.

@Malakai I had originally writen "open world FPS", but I noticed I was leaving lots of TPS open world games, so I changed it. Should have left it as it was.

Besides that, I'd argue that BotW isn't selling well because it features an open world (better worded: not only because of that), but that's besides the point. And I did say "big Western publishers", which are more focused on mature FPS and TPS titles. It's one of the reasons why Bethesda decided to port Skyrim to the platform and not Fallout, for example.

Apples and oranges. Stardock don't make console games, they make gigantic 4X games that are very much oriented towards PC play. Galactic Civilizations is an excellent series, but I'm not sure I would buy it on Switch even if they did make it. In my experience, bad things happen when people try to adapt deep, strategic PC experiences to consoles and handhelds. GalCiv is actually one of the reasons I looked for a gaming PC last time I needed a new computer. I certainly didn't buy my Switch expecting a GalCiv port.

So, this guy is speaking from an extremely biased viewpoint. His company has done pretty well in their own niche, and that niche isn't anything like the potential Switch market. It would be a complete waste of their limited resources to try and develop a Switch port.

This is kind of like asking Alan Moore if he has any plans to write a Harlequin romance. It's just not even on his radar.

Lel If it does not need 3rd party support then why should I bother buying it? Just so I can wait 5 years from now to play the next Zelda or hope for Metroid Prime 4 which might never happen? This is a stupid thing to say.

I definitely don't think that the switch needs 3rd party games to be successful. It does need good games though. In my opinion most of the 3rd party games on the Wii sucked. If third parties want to succeed on any system the games have to be good. Putting out a "phoned-in" port doesn't really cut it. Assuming demand for the system remains high, third parties would be foolish not to embrace the Switch. I'd definitely be inclined to pick the Switch version of a game, assuming it's not a half-baked port, just due to the fact I can play it anywhere.

Really? Pretty sure I hear quite often that Indies sell better on Nintendo and get treated better as of late. Games like SteamWorld, BitTrip and quite a few others tell about it. Especially right now when Nintendo is letting indies take an uncontested spotlight...

@BiasedSonyFan Yeah, because it def sold a load of Wii U systems, and people who forked out hundreds for that system didn't get dropped like a bad smell far sooner than any company that respects its paying customers should be dropping them. Way to treat gamers and consumers well, and way for you to stick up for such business practices. Sony puts out consoles where owners usually get around ten years of real solid support, both first party and beyond--and that's been true since the original PlayStation. Nintendo puts out a console that struggles to get four years of average support, outside of the first party titles--and it's older consoles have usually been dropped like bombs once the new once comes out for generations now. And you think Nintendo is doing right by you. You are doing everyone real proud.

Wow.....Ii knew this OP would draw some comments. So I have to add a few myself.

1. You know there have been some good 3rd party games on Nintendo systems so it is unfair to act like they are always trash. Ubi has a number of good efforts like BGE on GC, RedStl2 on Wii and then Raman, Zombi, and even Ac4 and SplinterBL were good ports with good gamepad support for WiiU. WiiU had other very good ports like NFSMw and DeusEX.

2. Why does everyone act like Jap 3rd party doesnt matter or exist for Nintendo? They have aleays gotten goos support from the homeland. Capcom, Sega, Namco, Square, Hudson, Level5 and now Platinum are all in the fold on Switch and will likely bring popular ports and remakes as well as a new IPs and series entries.

3. Indies are all over Switch and N has a number of top notch ones in the stable. Fast Racing and SteamWrldHst to me were AAA games @ $20 and another $10 for excellent dlc. This is already underway on Switch with excellent RMX at launch and SteamDig2 on yhe way.

Look 3rd party will essentially come if Switch sells robustly from now until whenever. Thats what Wii, 3Ds, DS, GB have all done. 3rd parties are dumb to avoid large markets if there is a chance a game will sell decently against the base.

Do I think N needs it......no not really. Nintendo consistently makes great games that are worth owning a system to play. Eerything else is gravy. As 3DS fades and N consolodates around one system their flow of games will be great and if Switch sells Wii like then they will throw more money at projects.

What I think is most important abut Switch is that I think N views it as a platform not a system. Next year I think we could see a $200 SwitchGo with integrated controlls and no dock support, then Switch home micro console for $149. All playing the same games and offering a very wide audience for N's games. I hope they are thinking in those terms but statements in recent years indicate they want a consildated scaling platform. If it sells even 3DS levels (10mil year) we are gonna see plenty of content.

This guy must never have heard of Sega and Capcom, which pretty much keeps its company afloat by making money on Monster Hunter on the 3DS..... Of course there are companies that make money on the Nintendo consoles, if you make something people want to play on it.